“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

By hyping ISIL threat, US is falling into group’s trap - The more the U.S. government responds to the so-called Islamic State as an existential threat to the world order, the more these proclamations will become self-fulfilling prophecies

ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN:

HERE IS THE RESULT OF THE NEOCON COUP:

Expanded military campaigns in Iraq and Syria will strengthen ISIL’s position domestically and abroad

On Sept. 19, just days before the U.S.-led airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) expanded into Syria, the militant group released a 55-minute documentary, “Flames of War,” warning about direct military confrontation with the United States. ISIL made similar taunts when it executed Western hostages, seized U.S. weapons sent to Syrian rebels and co-opted groups that were trained to fight against them.

Why is ISIL so eager to lure the United States into battle? While ISIL has unrivaled access to multiple revenue streams, a vast array of arms and command tens of thousands of soldiers, the one thing it lacks is local popular legitimacy — a big problem for a group that aspires to form a caliphate. However, the expanded foreign intervention will likely help ISIL mitigate this challenge by galvanizing the public against the U.S.-led coalition, with ISIL portraying itself as the only force capable of repelling these malignant invaders. Meanwhile, the U.S. will be drawn ever deeper into a war of attrition in which its enemies, nonstate actors, have little to lose and everything to gain.

Bolstering ISIL’s legitimacy

Resistance organizations such as ISIL are defined nearly as much by their enemies as they are by their own actions. For ISIL’s leadership, it is an honor when U.S. politicians declare them a major threat that must be resisted before, as Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., put it, we “all get killed here at home.” It is also a propaganda victory for ISIL when the United States marshals more than 50 nations to join its campaign of ill-defined goals and likely ill-fated results. That ISIL’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and his forces could warrant such a global response is a testament to their apparent significance and strength — a message that is reinforced the longer ISIL remains defiant in the face of such overwhelming opposition.

While the contribution of most of these allies is largely symbolic, each addition to the anti-ISIL coalition bolsters the group’s credentials as a major world actor more than it boosts Washington’s image as a global collaborator. It further strengthens the extremists’ legitimacy that the latest campaign is led by the world’s unipolar superpower, with kinetic support drawn primarily from the region’s autocratic states and former colonial and imperial European overlords. ISIL’s struggle against these powers, which are widely perceived as the biggest enemies of Muslims’ self-determination, will go a long way toward distracting any sympathetic public from its military excesses and failures in governance. Civilian casualties will only exacerbate this effect.

Despite initial White House denials of collateral damage, the first raids on ISIL killed 70 of its fighters and eight noncombatants; contemporaneous attacks on Khorasan, a group of Al-Qaeda veterans, killed 30 militants and at least 11 noncombatants. On Sept. 24, strikes on ISIL’s Syrian oil refineries killed 14 terrorists and five noncombatants. In the first week since the Syrian campaign began, roughly 17 percent (more than 1 out of 6) of the casualties have been civilians, including children. And these strikes were against easier-to-identify hard targets, meaning the ratio of civilians to militants killed is likely to get worse as the campaign deepens and ISIL fightersintegrate themselves more heavily into civilian areas.

There is little means of increasing the precision of airstrikes without boots on the ground. This leaves Barack Obama’s administration with three options: scale back its offensive in Syria, tolerate ever higher rates of collateral damage or break its vow of not committing American ground forces in a combat mission. Every option, however, represents a victory for Baghdadi. Because all his fighters who are killed are glorified as martyrs and used to recruit others, the campaign offers little downside for ISIL but entails big risks for U.S. and its allies.

Western powers risk glamorizing the very actors they are ostensibly seeking to undermine while their reactionary policies play into the hands of the enemy. In a word, the best way to defeat ISIL is to simply refuse to playits game.

Given the complex dynamics involved, military interventions typically last much longer than projected and cost much more in terms of lives and resources. They rarely achieve their initial stated goals and often result in adverse second-order effects. Campaigns against ideologically driven nonstate actors tend to be even more risky and less successful because the enemy is extremely flexible and often has little to lose. This fact was underscored by former Defense Intelligence Agency head Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s recent testimony that the United States is “no safer” as a result of its 13-year war on terrorism. In many respects, the problem has grown worse. As an official extension of this indefinite war, the campaign against ISIL will probably be equally counterproductive.

The blowback has already begun. Thousands have turned out across Syria to protest coalition airstrikes. Even moderate Syrian rebels, who are funded and trained by Washington, have condemned the strikes as ineffective, citing the fact that their leadership was not consulted or briefed in the selection of strategic targets. The protesters and some members of the armed Syrian opposition deplored the civilian casualties and the fact that the coalition has already begun targeting non-ISIL rebel groups, such as the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, while there have been no strikes against Syrian government targets.

Once an ally of the moderates, al-Nusra Front has evolved into a rival in part because of U.S. policies designed to help distinguish the “good“ rebels from al-Qaeda. Until now, al-Nusra Front was focused on and has been extremely effective against the Syrian government, but it is now vowing reprisal attacks against the United States for the latest strikes. Worse still, the attacks have pushed al-Nusra Front toward rapprochement with ISIL. Far from being divided against one another, the militants are uniting against a common enemy: the U.S.-led coalition and its proxies, including the moderate Syrian rebels. These developments will not only endanger the United States and its regional interests, allies and local agents but they will also strengthen the Syrian regime and the region’s extremists.

A better alternative

Washington’s strategy is doomed to fail because fundamentalism, radicalization and terrorism are inherently sociological problems that can be easily exacerbated but never resolved by military means. In fact, the most effective action the international community can take in response to ISIL is to stop feeding the beast.

This would mean cutting aid to nonstate actors in Syria and the broader region. It also entails Western powers’ revisiting the level and types of cooperation afforded to Israel and Middle Eastern dictators and monarchs in order to reduce complicity in their abuses — depriving militants of new fodder for propaganda. Measures to restrict the flow of fighters into the region should be joined by policies to cut trafficking of illicit funds and (especially) arms.

However, the single most effective way to delegitimize ISIL is to portray and deal with its threat in a less hyperbolic manner. While it should not be taken lightly, ISIL is a manageable challenge that can still be contained and largely subdued by the states and local populations they occupy. The more the U.S. government responds to the so-called Islamic State as an existential threat to the world order, the more these proclamations will become self-fulfilling prophecies. Western powers risk glamorizing the very actors they are ostensibly seeking to undermine while their reactionary policies play into the hands of the enemy. In a word, the best way to defeat ISIL is to simply refuse to play its game.

206 comments:

“Syria, Iran, Iraq” - This country was taken over by a Policy Coup - Watch the last two minutes of the Wesley Clark video - compare that to the recent words of Bibi Netanyahu at the UN - How diid this happen?

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

General Wesley Clark:Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

Which country was this supposed to benefit? How have US interests been advanced? Netanyahu tells us that Iran is more of a danger to the US than ISIS with the implication that the US, of course, should go to war with Iran. He will not be satisfied until we do.

$22 Billion to Fight ISIL in same Year Congress cut $8.7B in Food Stamps

By Juan Cole | Oct. 1, 2014 |

It was all the way back in February, so the memory of this headline has faded:” Congress passes $8.7 billion food stamp cutBy Ned Resnikoff

It’s official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits.The Senate on Tuesday voted 68-32 to send the 2014 Farm Bill – which includes an $8.7 billion cut to food stamps – to President Obama’s desk. Nine Democrats opposed the bill, and 46 members of the Democratic caucus voted for it, joining 22 Republicans.”

The GOP Congress’s assault on the American working class has been waged with the pretext that the Federal government has no money (what with being in debt and all). This despite the money being owed to the American people on the whole, and despite the long tradition of deficits in government budgets, which have seldom in history been balanced. But note that when there was a Republican president in the zeroes, the same voices did not demand austerity, but ran up the deficit with obvious glee.

In contrast, Congress has no problem with the war on ISIL in Iraq and Syria, which could cost from $18 bn to $22 bn a year. Admittedly, in military terms this expense is relatively small. The point is that the same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle– the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric.

The failure of an air campaign in Syria where there is no effective fighting force on the ground allied with the US, which could take advantage of the bombings, is becoming evident at Kobane. Despite US and other aerial bombings, ISIL fighters have moved to only a couple of miles from the besieged Kurdish city.

In contrast, in Iraq the Kurdish Peshmerga have taken a few villages and a border crossing with Syria back from ISIL in the past couple of days, and may have benefited in this push from close air support from the US and other governments. Even there, while intervention to stop the Kurdish capital of Erbil from falling to ISIL might be justifiable, helping the Kurdish Peshmerga capture Sunni Arab towns is a more delicate proposition.

In any case, all of a sudden I guess cost is no object for the Tea Party and its fellow travelers.

When IS broke onto the scene, I argued that the West should arm-up the Kurds - particularly with anti-aircraft and anti-armor munitions. The West has not for fear of offending its good friends Turkey, Syria, and Iran.

I found a quote which really fits our little piece of "O"rdure, to a T

“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”― Arthur SchopenhauerReplyFarmer RobWed Oct 01, 12:43:00 AM EDT

Here's a more complete version, it does fit our little piece of "O"Rdure, like a latex gove

“The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen.

The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes.

But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”― Arthur Schopenhauer

From several threads ago;

We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.Theodore Roosevelt

The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.Theodore Roosevelt

Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike.Theodore Roosevelt

I assume that Robert Peterson does not see that a person can be 100% for the United States and still ...... see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes.

That is where Deuce, Rufus and myself stand.

While our little piece of "O"rdure has never said a word against the Zionist regime in his own country of Israel.Not one word, not one time.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda. “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said in the interview.

Another word of widom, from Winston, that describes the situation in that portion of Palestine known as Israel.

... the abiding fear and hatred of the movement that seeks to place the native on a level with the white man ... the Kaffir is to be declared the brother of the European, to be constituted his legal equal, to be armed with political rights.

In contrast, Congress has no problem with the war on ISIL in Iraq and Syria, which could cost from $18 bn to $22 bn a year. Admittedly, in military terms this expense is relatively small. The point is that the same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle– the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric.

I don't know if Juan Cole's numbers are right but the specific costs for this particular war are less important than the fact that there are any costs at all. What he is talking about are opportunity costs.

In today's world, a strong defensive capability is essential. Fighting a defensive war is existential. Fighting an offensive war is merely a waste of money. There is no productive value to a bullet. The is no multiplier effect associated with the money spent. Think what an extra $ trillion or two could do for life in the US or the world. Not to diminish the sacrifice at all, but the loss of US life in GWB's Iraq adventure pales in comparison to the lives that could have been saved had the money been spend productively.

I think it was Asimov that said, "War is the last refuge of the incompetent".

In Syria, the U.S. is not coordinating the strikes with the main moderate opposition group, the Free Syrian Army, even though it has backed that group with weapons and training, said Andrew Tabler, who follows the conflict for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Without an "Active Partner" on the ground, the US will be hamstrung, strategically.

Seven in 10 Americans support air strikes against Islamic State insurgents in Syria, but far fewer back sending U.S. forces to Iraq as advisers – evidence in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll of the political risks of returning U.S. soldiers to that volatile region.

Fifty-three percent support sending U.S. forces to train Iraqi government troops and coordinate air strikes against Islamic State positions. But that’s comparatively modest in terms of support for military action, and 17 percentage points behind the public’s endorsement of air strikes.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/ramshackle-army-at-odds-with-berlin-s-global-aspirations-a-994607.htmlGermany's Disarmed Forces: Ramshackle Military at Odds with Global Aspirations

"... in the Baltics, for example -- the Bundeswehr has pledged to make 60 Eurofighters available, but it is currently incapable of supplying them. If the allies come knocking at Germany's door for greater engagement in northern Iraq or Africa, the Bundeswehr won't be able to deliver there either. Indeed, it's possible that the world's fourth largest industrial nation and global leader in exports wouldn't even be able to provide six fighter jets to a US-led coalition in northern Iraq.

These days, a lot of scoffing can be heard about the military in Berlin political circles. One line goes, "We're practicing disarmament through wear and tear."

Looks like we hit up around Kobani another four or five times last night.

A column of black smoke rose from the southeastern side of Kobani, a predominantly Kurdish border town under siege by Islamic State for more than two weeks, as jets roared overhead, a Reuters correspondent on the Turkish side said.

"(They) hit a village that is four to five kilometres (two to three miles) southeast of Kobani and we heard they destroyed one (Islamic State) tank," Parwer Mohammed Ali, a translator with the Kurdish PYD group, told Reuters by telephone from Kobani, known as Ain al-Arab in Arabic.

The United States has been carrying out strikes in Iraq against the militant group since July and in Syria since last week with the help of Arab allies. Britain and France have also struck Islamic State targets in Iraq.

Using mostly nighttime strikes, it aims to damage and destroy the bases and forces of the al Qaeda offshoot which has captured large areas of both countries. Turkey, which hosts a US air base at its southern town of Incirlik, has so far .. . . . .

The daily death toll in Mexico ...Makes for interesting reading, the causes of the violence is an open debate.

There seems to be about ten cartel related killings a day being reported, on average.A Saint Valentines Day Massacre, every day.

Thy have an assault weapons ban, in Mexico, but it does not seem to be very effective at stopping the violence.It does provide the police with a viable excuse to arrest the folks that don't pay 'em off.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is initiating a program to give refugee status to some young people from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador in response to the influx of unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Under the program, immigrants from those countries who are lawfully in the United States will be able to request that child relatives still in those three countries be resettled in the United States as refugees. The program would establish in-country processing to screen the young people to determine if they qualify to join relatives in the U.S.

The unintended consequences of US interventions in Central America, still reverberating.Gotta hand it to the Dulles brothers, they certainly impacted all of America, North and South, with their shenanigans.

"Just been emailed this CBN News video report about France and the problems they're having with the followers of islam. You have to watch this to understand what's coming to a street near you very soon ..."

"AnonymousWed Oct 01, 12:04:00 PM EDTDoubt it.There is no reason to believe it.None at all. The threat to US is not Islam.It is US."

Have you ever been to France? Paris? I have, many times. The video is accurate in every way.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152719093129414

"Just been emailed this CBN News video report about France and the problems they're having with the followers of islam. You have to watch this to understand what's coming to a street near you very soon ..."

"It deployed tanks and armoured vehicles on the border with Syria this week as fighting intensified and the government has sent a proposal to parliament which would extend its powers to authorise cross-border military incursions.

But it fears that U.S.-led air strikes, if not accompanied by a broader political strategy, could strengthen Assad and bolster Kurdish militants allied to Kurds in Turkey who have fought for three decades for greater autonomy.

"Tons of air bombs will only delay the threat and danger," Erdogan said, adding that the safe return of Syrian refugees in Turkey was also a priority.

'We are open and ready for any cooperation in the fight against terrorism. However, it should be understood by everybody that Turkey is not a country in pursuit of temporary solutions nor will Turkey allow others to take advantage of it.'"

If Turkey entered the fight, would that act as a catalyst to unify the sundry factions in the region against Turkey? Erdogan has made hints about a neo-Ottoman government.

While Turks fought valiantly and honorably in Korea and have the largest standing army in the region, are they qualitatively better than Saddam's army, al-Assad's army, or the new model Iraqi Army? Additionally, would Turkish involvement bring in Egypt?

Well, you felas can have an air support campign, as rufus and I have said is best, or land troops there, like Robert Peterson advocates for.

There is no other option available.

The idea that the US will walk away, is a fantasy.Both politically and economically.

Sorry that reality interferes, but the US never built the capacity to replace Middle Eastern oil, despite the best case that folks like Rufus and I made. So, there you have it.

The only way that "this time" will be different, is if the US does not inject men, combat ground forces, into the conflict.

THAT would be what makes this time "different". We can only hope that it is."

----

"There is no other option available."

Bullshit. One option is not to fling bombs from the air and let the local folk work it out. It simply is not true that IS threatens the flow of all middle eastern oil. Far from it - they may gain control of some minor oil fields but the oil would flow even then. The problem wouldn't be lack of oil flow but rather that they would gain the revenue stream from it.

What you are advocating for, is not in the realm of possibility.There are two options for the US.An air campaign using local ground forces, or ...Inserting US ground forces.

Find any other option spoken of by a leader in the Federal government of the US.

I doubt you can find one.That is the reality of it. You can have your dreams, your fantasies, but there is no one in the governent that echoes your proposal.

You are buying into the "It's all about the oil" meme.And it's not.It is about Israel, about the "Yinon Plan" and its implementation. It is about disemboweling Iran.

The oil is the flag that is waved, and it is a real concern. It is one of the things that keeps US involved, but is not the primary driver of the Daesh. Not the primary driver of the Saudi Arabians or the Emir of Qatar.

Certainly not what makes Israel prefer Daesh (al-Qeada) over the Alawites, Christians and Kurds.

fuck rat, you argue out both sides of your mouth at the same time - it was you arguing about it being all about the oil just moments ago. Just because Obama and Boehner aren't speaking of an option doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What foolishness!

If the oil card were removed, by implementing a rational energy program, one that utilized the great agricultural engine that we have in the US, the excuse of "oil" would be removed.

Without that, it would be clearly evident what the other causes of US involvement in the region are. The US people would not stand for it, if the truth was plainly evident. But will allow the military actions, to protect "The American Way", as "O"rdure would say. Even though that "Way" is alien to him.

I thought your rationale was it was all about the oil but now you are arguing RIP. Is that it - the US is obliged to protect all?

With respect to the folk on the mountain most of them were gone by the time America rode in with its white hat. Fine, lets grant you the goodness of the humanitarian mission on the mountain top. That issue is dead and gone. Now who are you rescuing with these bombs? Shall we go to Nigeria next and rescue those poor girls kidnapped by Boko Harum?

Fine, wonderful thing saving those folk. Now, how does that figure into tomorrow's bombing runs? Do you think we should engage as we are to save more folk? If yes, who? How far does the US responsibility to protect go?

Why do you support bombing folk for oil especially given your desire for ethanol to flourish? That seems contradictory to me.

As I noted the oil would still flow if IS manage to control a oil fields. In fact the areas they've managed to dominate have very little oil but how, in your view, do they threaten all middle eastern oil and why would the oil stop if they controlled the fields?

dude, there are more options than the two you offer. An option is not to bomb and not to insert ground troops. I know, it is a tough concept for you to think outside the confines of a military solution. Not every problem is a nail requiring a hammer.

The debate is revolving around the level of engagement that will be required.Not whether or not the US should be involved.

Should we follow Hedaho Bob's program and insert ground troops into Iraq, or follow the President's lead and support the local forces that are acting in what is perceived, by the politicos in DC, to be US national interests.

I've made it very clear, Ash. I think we should kill all of those bastards that we can. period. stop.

They behead women, and children, every day. That is Major League Craziness.

There's no way that humanity is not going to get hurt, and get hurt bad, if they ever control the wealth that would come from owning the Iraqi - and, God help us, the Kuwaiti, UAE, and Saudi - Oilfields.

If you want my opinion on what should be done I'll state it but the idea that some politician doesn't currently have the guts, or smarts, to say it, well that's a different matter and irrelevant. Heck, you guys all went headlong down the merry path, marching in unison, supporting GW Bush on his great Iraq adventure. I didn't and I think big mistakes are being made in the current middle eastern policy. The US has brain dead politicians, really? Tell me something I don't know already.

What piece of legislation should we be supporting?Who is advocating for the repeal of the AUMF of 14SEP01, now?

The President was advocating for it, but that was then, this is nowWhen Mr Obama said he wanted to repeal the AUMF of 14SEP01 he was pilloried by his political opponents, it never was repealed, and so it has been applied, one more time!

The US is in this up to their ass now and there is no way they will get out until the end. That's a given.

However, Ash is offering 'his' opinion on what should a shouldn't happen, something entirely independent of what some dick in D.C. might think.

There have been two (or more) debates going on here. The first, the one you mention, involves the level of engagement and the means of that engagement by the US. Another has been the wisdom of US engagement at all, both at the beginning of the conflict and now after it has morphed into a wider war.

I'm a little "leery" of putting Forward Air Controllers (spotters/targeters) on the front lines, with only the Iraqi troops to protect them, but I could 'possibly' be persuaded.

I Would draw the line on "Combat Brigades."

If we got to the point where we really needed combat troops I guess I would have to say, "Okay, this is going to crash the global economy even worse than it already is, But fuckit, let's let it crash, and, just maybe, we can get Congress to go along with a souped-up Ethanol build-out."

The second 'debate' is over, Quirk, except for the academics and those that just want to whine

The US is engaged, now the only debate that matters, which military strategy should the US pursue, the one advocated by the 'professionals' of inserting US troops into the conflict, or that ordered by the President, to provide local forces with close air support?

As for the first invasion of Iraq, I said at the time, back at the Belmont Club, that the war against Saddam's Iraq was not part of the "War on Terror', and should not have been conflated with it. Others were speaking of a "Clash of Civilizations" and a "War on Islam", even Mr Bush spoke of a 'Crusade', once.

I always have stated that kind of thinking, that argument, was fraudulentStill do

If we got to the point where we really needed combat troops I guess I would have to say, "Okay, this is going to crash the global economy even worse than it already is, But fuckit, let's let it crash, and, just maybe, we can get Congress to go along with a souped-up Ethanol build-out."

You know, Obama knows, I know, and the dumbest mother*****r in Mississippi (oh, wait, I'm being redundant :) ) knows that no one will be able to "destroy" ISIS. No more than we were able to destroy Al Queda (oopsie, redundant again.) :)

We can, and will, kill most of the ones in Iraq, and make life a bit more difficult for the ones in Syria, and after that all bets are off.

We know that a Politician Has to say certain things in public. There just isn't any choice.

It also assumes that IS folk are separate from the folk that live there. I think they are much more ingrained in and/or supported by the population 'on the ground' then many folk here believe. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the Sunni populations ire with the Shia Iraqi government. Then you've got the snake pit in Syria...

After the current 'crisis' is over, sure.But that will be then, this is now. And for NOW, the debate oevr whether or not to engage is finished.The US is engaged, the only debate is how deeply involved does the US get.

The President is going with the smallest footprint option available. Those that do not want to see the US get involved in another ground war should support him. Or be silent if the Boehner/ Hedaho Bob American Stinker faction gets its way and troops are sent to protect those that could readily protect themselves, with a little help from their friends.

As for Syria, I do not think the 'strategic bombing, will do a lot of good.It may put a crimp in the Daesh funding sources, taking out their oil refineries, but that's about all.

If the US does not have an "Active Partner", does not have local forces on the ground, there is little likelihood of long term success. If the US is serious about defeating Daesh, in Syria, the Assad regime is the only viable option, in that regard.

The charges against Filip Szymik and Jordan Peixoto come down to this: Szymik allegedly learned about Ackman’s $1 billion short bet against Herbalife in late 2012 through his roommate, a tennis-playing analyst at Pershing Square named Marius Adamski whom Szymik had grown up with in Poland. Szymik in turn tipped his close friend Peixoto, who laid in his own short bet, in the form of out-of-the-money put options that soared $339,421 in value after Ackman publicized his claims that Herbalife was an illegal pyramid scheme in a Dec. 20, 2012 news conference.

This, in the SEC’s eyes, is insider trading. Because Peixoto and Szymik “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that they possessed information Adamski had misappropriated from Pershing Square, the SEC claims, they violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, which the SEC says prohibits buying or selling securities “in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence.” That duty, the SEC says, extended from Ackman to Adamski, and then from Adamski to Szymik, who then violated the law by trading on it.

English: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Comm...

How can a person totally unconnected to a company, who comes across potentially market-moving information involving a hedge fund that is actually opposed to that company, be guilty of insider trading?

PARIS – France is deploying an anti-aircraft frigate and more fighter jets in the Persian Gulf region to boost its ability to carry out airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq.

The Defense Ministry said Wednesday that three Rafale jets will shortly join six others already based at a French air base outside Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. It said French military liaison officers will also join allied command structures in the region.

Acting on a request from Iraqi authorities, France has conducted two sets of airstrikes against the Islamic State group in Iraq since Sept. 19 — the first foreign country to join the United States in conducting such strikes in Iraq.

France is not participating in U.S.-led airstrikes in neighboring Syria, where the group is also active.

Greg Orman, an independent candidate who has never won political office, now leads veteran Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas by 46%-41% in the most surprising Senate race of the year, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll finds.

Rufus IIWed Oct 01, 02:46:00 PM EDTI've made it very clear, Ash. I think we should kill all of those bastards that we can. period. stop.They behead women, and children, every day. That is Major League Craziness.

Hamas shoots rockets at school kids, women and civilians everyday for 10 years and yet you cannot bring yourself to call that "major league" crazy

"O"rdure is all about the Hate.It drives his life, and so he projects it upon everyone that disagrees with him.

It was not until I became familiar with Israeli, via the world wide web and then the issues involved that I developed a true distaste for the bullshit they spread. The more they lied, the more I researched and the more egregious the lies became.

It seems that the German military cooked the books; the cause of a raging debate. The list below, sad as it is, is totally bogus and does not reflect real capability. To get the full impact of the crisis you have to read the article. Suffice to say, the Germans could be routed by either the Russians or Israelis (what an irony).

The French may be sending the only seaworthy platform in their fleet, given that they have been as irresponsible as the Germans.

Who do you think is providing the in flight refueling for these Europeans? It looks like McCain was correct to push for additional USAF tankers.

It appears that the paper included a considerable amount of misleading information and that the military might even be in worse shape than that presented by the officials.

High-ranking military officials involved had the option of giving a seemingly arbitrary green, yellow or red classification for systems for which their unit had responsibility. Germany's lone deployable submarine (of four) received a yellow rating. Seventy of the country's 180 Boxer armored combat vehicles were deemed unfit for deployment. Defense Ministry sources also told SPIEGEL that Bundeswehr General Inspector Volker Wieker even made last-minute changes to the color codes on some of the systems. Meanwhile, air force chief Karl Müllner made clear in remarks to members of the committee that, despite green dots signifying equipment was working, his forces were only capable of conducting current missions and did not have the capacity for any new ones. Officials at the ministry stated that the "classification system used is based on a combination of availability for deployment and training as well as consideration for the ability to fulfill the mission."

But some of the criteria seemed arbitrary, with no apparent rules on the time frames used for measuring the weapons systems' operational readiness. A good example is the NH90 helicopter. The report measured the operational capability for these aircraft during the months of April, May and June, a time when most were still flying. A current list from sources close to the manufacturer indicate that all but two of 33 helicopters have since been grounded.

The situation is similar with the navy's Sealynx helicopter, of which only four can apparently fly. In order to improve the aircraft's ranking in the overview, the period used for the averaging was October 2013 through September 2014. However, by the end of June, all of the aircraft had been grounded because of construction defects.

... and the Germans, our NATO allies, are going nowhere unless they walk or swim ... Wherever they go it will be as tourists -- sort of like their mission in Afghanistan -- because they have few weapons necessary for modern warfare.

Putin isn't interested in invading Germany, nor is Israel. The point was obviously missed.

Putin just wants to get away with digesting parts of neighboring countries.

The idea that they would go on a "Nation Building" exercise in southwest Asia, interesting, but stupid.Why the Germans would want or need to dedicate a substantial portion of their wealth to military hardware they do not need to defend themselves, not explained by allen.

As for Putin and the Ukraine and Georgia, well ...The US took most of Mexico, the good parts, anyway

Turkey has two objectives in Syria. The first is to prevent an independent Kurdistan on it borders and the second is to get rid of Assad. if they have to use ISIS as an excuse...well...

Erdogan is sending mixed messages to the US right no. He says he is all for jumping in and taking on ISIS but only if in the end Assad is taken out. He says they are currently closing the border new ISIS recruits using Turkey as a transit point to Syria. He fails to mention that he is doing the same for Kurdish troops trying to reinforce the Kobane Canton. Tomorrow the Turkish legislature will vote on a plan to deploy Turkish troops to Syria and Iraq if there is a treat to Turkish national security. Not sure who determines that. Likely Erdogan. The proposal would also allow allied troops to pass through Turkey and allow troops to be deployed to set up a 20 mile wide security zone along the Syrian border.

It will be interesting to see how the vote goes. Unless something has changed, I would suspect Turkish public opinion would be against intervention and both the Turkish opposition party (Republican People Party) and the pro-Kurdish party (People's Democracy Party) are expected to vote against it.

If Turkish troops are sent into Syria we could see a quick shift in alignments again with the Kurds turning against both ISIS and Turkey.

The Egyptian Army has more tanks than the Germans, British and US forces had in Africa, combined, during WWII. 1,400 Abrams M1 main battle tank.The Israeli have about 1,800 different models of Merkavas in service, according to Wiki.

If the Germans need some of 'em, they can get the excess Israeli inventory.Trade 'em for a submarine, or pay cash.

But obviously, the Germans do not see a need for increased spending on non-productive military hardware.They know full well the French and Poles are not going to invade, and that the Russians are not coming, either.

We know that a Politician Has to say certain things in public. There just isn't any choice.

The question is: What are they saying in private?

Erdogan has made it clear what he would like, the departure of ISIS and and the departure of Assad, with the order reversed of course.

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall while Kerry was talking to Saudi Arabia, or the UAE, or now Turkey. Where there any promises made as incentives?

True, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE all were concerned about the spread of ISIS and the challenge that threat posed to their own regimes. However, I don't think anyone would dispute that after the first month of US air raids the US was firmly committed to be in it for the long haul with or without any kind of coalition of the willing (except for maybe Australian, a country that would go to war over an argument about beer.) So how did we convince SA and the UAE and now, supposedly, Turkey to get involved in a war on other Sunnis?

We know that SA, UAE, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey want ISIS taken out (or at least that is what they say). We also know that the same countries plus others like the UK, France, EU countries have gone on record as saying Assad has to go. Did we offer any of these countries the inventive of Assad's head in order for them to actively participate? It's a question I am interested in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2776592/A-slapdash-Secret-Service-isn-t-s-wrong-White-House-real-scandal-President-complacent-protecting-Americans.htmlA slapdash Secret Service detail isn't what's wrong with the White House - the real scandal is a President who is so complacent about protecting Americans

"President Obama this week committed professional suicide...

He managed to single-handedly alienate 200,000 employees in the American intelligence agencies by going on 60 Minutes and ruthlessly chucking them all under a bus over the rise of terror group ISIS...

A more shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing it would be hard to find from a sitting President...

All that will happen now is that those maligned intelligence agencies will exact cold-blooded revenge on Obama by drip-feeding negative stories about him until he’s gone.

You are one of those people who has his own internal dictionary, aren't you? A word means what you want it to mean, right? Tradition and erudition be damned, right?

If you expect to be understood, Anon., you have to use the language of your audience. Now, were that audience made up of pigs, monkeys, and Muslims, it wouldn't matter; but this audience uses standard American English. So, what say ye mate: will ya give her a try, aye?

You are one of those people who has his own internal dictionary, aren't you? A word means what you want it to mean, right? Tradition and erudition be damned, right?

If you expect to be understood, Anon., you have to use the language of your audience. Now, were that audience made up of pigs, monkeys, and Muslims, it wouldn't matter; but this audience uses standard American English. So, what say ye, mate: will ya give her a try, aye?"

"AshWed Oct 01, 02:49:00 PM EDTIf you want my opinion on what should be done I'll state it but the idea that some politician doesn't currently have the guts, or smarts, to say it, well that's a different matter and irrelevant. Heck, you guys all went headlong down the merry path, marching in unison, supporting GW Bush on his great Iraq adventure."

I supported the invasion of Iraq and would do so again. The circus that ensued, e.g. R.O.E., was unforeseen -- frankly, I did not believe presidents could be that stupid.

Among other things, I predicted that the U.S. would have to garrison Iraq for decades. The brilliant "One" also proved himself an idiot.

Sorry, Ash, the Strait of Hormuz remains the most strategically valuable piece of real estate on earth.

American aircraft hit IS fighters near the Turkish border in an area east of Ain al-Arab, known as Kobane in Kurdish, which has come under mounting threat from the jihadists.

Three strikes near Kobane "destroyed" an IS artillery piece, damaged another and destroyed two rocket launchers, said Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East.

US forces started targeting the IS group around Kobane over the weekend after urgent appeals from Kurdish leaders for help to defend the town.

In northeast Syria, US forces conducted five air raids near the Iraqi border area of Sinjar, targeting an artillery piece, a tank, three armed vehicles, an observation post and four IS "fighting positions," it said.

In eastern Syria, US aircraft carried out two bombing raids near Dayr al-Zawr, destroying an IS armored vehicle and another vehicle. And northeast of the city of Aleppo, one bombing run destroyed four IS buildings, Centcom said.

In Iraq, where Kurdish forces have launched an offensive against the IS group on three fronts, US military aircraft carried out seven strikes in the country's northwest -- two near Mosul dam, one northwest of Baghdad and one in west Fallujah, according to Central Command.

The seven raids in the northwest destroyed an IS armored vehicle, two transport vehicles, and four armed vehicles while damaging another, it said.

Around Mosul Dam, two strikes destroyed an IS position and an armed vehicle. Northwest of Baghdad, one airstrike destroyed an IS armed vehicle while another strike in west Fallujah struck an IS checkpoint, it said.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Palestinians have drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an end to Israeli occupation by November 2016, which they have shared informally with Arab states and some council members, U.N. diplomats said on Wednesday.Related Stories

The text has not been formally circulated to the full 15-nation Security Council, a move that can only be done by a council member, said the diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity. As a result, it remains unclear when, and if, it will be put to a vote.

It calls for "the full withdrawal of Israel ... from all of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, as rapidly as possible and to be fully completed within a specified timeframe, not to exceed November 2016."

The draft, which was obtained by Reuters, is likely to be met with opposition from veto-wielding member the United States, a key ally of Israel.

Most people don't know, that many orthodox jews oppose Israel and the occupation of Palestine. These orthodox jews believe Zionism endangers peace on earth. One of them is Rabbi Josef Antebi (born in Hebron), who was tortured by Zionists. This is an interview made in Amsterdam, the last day of Hanuka.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.